This weekend was marked by Abu-Mazen's threat to leave the Palestinian Authority leadership, which may bring anarchy to the PA or the rise of another leader, which may be worse for Israel and the West. The Israeli Initiative is excited about these possibilities, as they will prove a point we have been making for years. The problem with a Palestinian "partner for peace" does not depend on a person. There is no difference if negotiations are between Netanyahu and Arafat or Olmert and Abu-Mazen. The fact that these two Israeli Prime Ministers were very interested in reaching an agreement, but did not succeed, is not a coincidence. The Palestinian national movement was created as a part of a battle against Israel, and this battle is the only justification for its existence. Therefore, the Palestinian Authority can never be a true partner for peace, but only for temporary arrangements that will give the Palestinians a better position to continue to undermine "the Zionist entity." Peace can and should be reached with so-called Palestinians, a.k.a. Arabs in the Land of Israel, but peace will never be achieved through the Palestinian national movement as represented by the PA. Time, effort and lives are sacrificed while futile attempts are made to base a peace process on the narrative of Palestinian nationalism.

The one person who should understand this better than anyone else is current Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who negotiated with Arafat in 2000 with Bill Clinton as mediator. Barak gave the most generous offer an Israeli Prime Minister could proffer, but Arafat refused him. Barak had, in effect, pushed Arafat into a corner by offering him to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the Palestinians' terms – an offer that contradicted the ethos of the Palestinian Authority, which Arafat headed. Following Arafat's refusal, the Camp David negotiations fell apart and the Second Intifada, with its thousands of victims, began shortly afterward.

Despite this, Ehud Barak announced before visiting the United States this week that "negotiations with the Palestinians are meant to establish a Palestinian State with a viable economy and territory adjacent to Israel," and bring "an end to the conflict, the mutual demands, and the occupation." According to Barak, these goals are "essential to Israel" and "any alternatives would be much worse."

Not one of Barak's statements is correct. It is clear that a Palestinian State within the borders of "the Bank and the Strip," as is suggested, would not have a viable economy and territory. Clearly, such a state would not bring an end to the conflict and the demands: What about the refugees? Will they disappear? What about the demand for all of Palestine? What about the Palestinians' intent to continue the conflict forever, thus perpetuating the Palestinian ethos? It is obvious that not only is a Palestinian State not necessary to Israel, but it is necessary to destroy Israel, and the claim that "any alternatives would be much worse" is a bad excuse for a paralysis in political thought. The truth is that any alternative would be much better.

In a recent interview with Arutz Sheva, I explained that "the key to true peace is stopping the peace process." There is no greater obstacle to peace than the current process, which has only brought violence and destruction since its inception. Peace will not come from the so-called peace process, nor from the political inertia the right is currently offering. Peace can thrive in Israel, if we work on it – if we clarify what the true problems are and how we can solve them. This is what the Israeli Initiative is all about.

After the interview with Arutz Sheva, I was interviewed for another religious radio station, completing the Initiative's latest "Hasbara" (Public Relations) campaign in the religious media. Two "Parashat HaShavua" (weekly biblical portion) newsletters published articles on the Palestinian refugee problem and the Israeli Initiative's efforts.

As a part of our religious-media "offensive," I emphasized that the religious-right's oversights in politics and diplomacy lead to the left's dominance in these fields. Without presenting a political alternative in political language, the "facts on the ground" strategy may prove a failure.

To read excerpts from the Arutz Sheva interview in English: www.israelnationalnews.com/News/

In addition to our "hasbara" campaign, we are continuing in our partnership with the Unity Coalition for Israel in the United States, which brings the Initiative's concepts to tens of thousands of Christians and Jews who support Israel. We have continued to meet with members of the Israeli Government, in hopes that the current government will be brave enough to make a change – to establish a Ministers' Committee to solve the refugee problem, to apply Israeli law on Judea and Samaria, and to free itself from the "two-state" formula that Clinton, Obama, Abu-Mazen and Netanyahu combined will never be able bring to fruition.

As always, we are open to comments and ideas.
Yours,

Yoav Sorek
Manager, The Israeli Initiative
www.Israelinitiative.com